THE CHALUTZ PROGRAM OF THE LABOR ZIONIST MOVEMENT

In presenting a paper to the Ideological Conference of the Poale Zion on the practical course of the chalutziut program of our movement, it is important, though perhaps seemingly redundant, to review briefly the ideological basis for that program—the ways in which it weaves itself into the warp and woof of the totality of Labor Zionist outlook.

The Labor Zionist movement in this country is, on a comparative basis, rich in chalutz achievement. It remembers the aliya of Eliezer Yaffe at the turn of the century; the founding of Hechalutz in America by David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi in 1917; the Jewish Legion of World War I; Cherut Aleph and Bet; the chaverim who, singly and in groups, ascended to Israel beginning with Golda Meir and continuing with chaverim who are now in Degania, Afikim, and Ramat Yochanan; the chaverim who established Kfar Blum, Gesher Haziv, and Urim; the chavcrim who participated in the War of Liberation; chaverim who are now doctors, engineers, teachers, communal workers, and businessmen in the cities of Israel.

One cannot escape feeling, however, that this approach to concrete personal identification with the future of Israel—actually emigrating to Israel and participating personally in the great process of Jewish renaissance—has always been shared by only a small minority of people in the movement. It was written about in the movement press, proclaimed with varying amounts of fervor by official spokesmen, supported with indifferent amounts of movement funds; and many, many good chaverim allowed the movement to espouse the principle publicly though their "hearts weren't in it." Though the movement, by its very character, was never a movement of "signed-up members" who allowed leaders to speak in their name, though it was always a movement of personal mass participation in movement affairs by all chaverim, it nevertheless identified itself in great measure, if subconsciously, with the concept of American Zionism—the chalutz front being for the people "over there." The chalutz movement itself was largely self-propelled. In charting our future chalutz efforts, therefore, it is not at all beside the point to examine again the basic tenets which move us to adopt such a program, to determine again their validity in terms of present-day American and world Jewish reality, to decide which aspects remain constant and which bear changing.

                                            *                                *                                    *
The Israel labor movement has been the central factor in the realization of the Zionist vision. It was the emigration of the Second Aliya to Israel and their establishment of a creative Jewish labor community in Israel which gave content to empty "charter" Zionism. It was the Haganah, from Tel Chai onwards, which lent force and strength to Zionist politics. It was movements of the twenties and thirties in Eastern and Central Europe which helped create the basis framework of Jewish reality in Palestine. It has been the Israeli kibbutzim and cooperatives which have traditionally set the moral tone for the Zionist movement. It is this movement which willingly and devotedly bore the brunt of Zionist responsibility, whether that responsibility demanded working in the desert, paving toads, defending colonies; or parachuting into Nazi territory, fighting in the Jewish Brigade; or creating the nucleus of a Jewish army and leading it in a successful battle for independence.

There was one underlying principle which was the mainspring of this Israel labor movement, a principle more important than the principle of the kibbutz, more important than the principles of the Histadrut, more important than the logic of Socialist Zionist ideology. That principle was called in Hebrew hagshama atzmit—personal self realization. Israel will not be built, said the leaders of this movement, by armchair Zionists or parlor socialists, by charters from the Sultan of Turkey or successful debating contests in the streets of Warsaw.

If it is possible to live a more complete and satisfying Jewish life in Israel than anywhere else, then the people who believe this should themselves help to build that life. If modern social theory and the ethical values of Jewish culture can best be developed in Israel, then the personal road of chaverim should be clear. If it is true that a Jewish state is the best protection against anti-Semitism, that Jewish minority status is basically untenable, then people who believe these things cannot make of themselves the exceptions who are not destined to be touched by anti-Semitism, or for whom Jewish minority status is tenable. In this modern world, Jews who possess no complexes about their Jewishness feel they have a right to equal treatment and consideration. They should defend themselves from their enemies, learning the use of arms if necessary, instead of resorting to fear-ridden, hushhush tactics. This was the kind of thinking which built the Israel labor movement.

In the main, the Labor Zionist movements in Eastern and Central Europe accepted this approach as the first commandment of their decalogue. This does not mean that they negated the Jewish life of the galut, or that they cut themselves off from Jewish communal life. The contrary is true. They were among the most active elements in all phases of Jewish life. Their approach to Israel and Zionism was an integral outgrowth of their being of the flesh and blood of the community, sharing its problems and proud of its heritage. It was the logical apex of their intensive Jewish experience. The movement placed aliya to Israel at the very center of its program. It created and supported the gigantic Hechalutz, Dror, Freiheit, Gordonia, and Hashomer Hatzair chalutz youth movements. Though it believed in the preservation of Jewish values and their continued development wherever Jews live, it never lost sight of the cardinal difference, the answer to the classic "mah nishtanah" of Zionism—ours is a movement of personal identification and personal self-realization.

Not all members were expected actually to go on aliya. They were expected to encourage their children to consider aliya, to have their school system create the educational basis for aliya, to support aliya financially and politically and ideologically. The responsibility facing our movement today is the consideration of the validity of this classic approach of the Labor Zionist movement for our own movement in America, in light of the reality of the American Jewish community of which we are an integral part, in light of the emergence of the Jewish state, in light of the challenges facing the Jewish people today.

                                            *                                    *                                    *

There existed in Central and Eastern Europe two basic environmental catalysts which aided the growth of the chalutz movement. One was the profound Jewish cultural and national identification of the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community—an identification which made the idea of aliya almost self-explanatory, an idea which welled up out of the very being of European Jewry. The second was the precarious position of Jews in those countries, a position which affected every Jew and which of itself compelled thinking people to consider emigration to a country where Jews would not be a minority, where they would be the arbiters of their own destiny. Neither of these conditions exists in America.

The total Jewish environment characteristic of Eastern Europe exists in America in very limited form. There will, of course, continue to be an important Jewish community in this country, but the exact form of its cultural evolution is unclear. Whether it will be a sort of "protestantized" Judaism or something more than that is as yet undetermined. It is something which we in the Zionist movement can, perhaps, affect. Generally speaking, however, it is clear that the creation of a significant chalutz movement depends on the prior creation of that profound Jewish identity which was taken for granted in Eastern Europe and which does not exist here. The elements of physical catastrophe and anti-Semitic discrimination, which was the additional background of chalutz movements elsewhere, also do not exist in the United States, which still remains a country of opportunity, a country possessed of a high standard of living—democratic, tolerant, and decidedly comfortable for Jews.

The average American Jew, including the members of our own movement, while eager to support Israel financially and politically, while perhaps willing to visit Israel, has never been willing to consider actual settlement in Israel. Indeed, he has developed a kind of super patriotism, which has made the whole subject highly unpopular. The small chalutz movements have existed mostly by virtue of their own efforts and have never received serious support even from the Zionist movements. Though this super-patriotism is itself, perhaps, psychological evidence of the validity of a good portion of the classic chalutz approach, it is quite possible that, had the European Jewish communities not been destroyed and the State of Israelis consequent crying need for chalutz personnel not been so acute, the Zionist movement could have been content to let "sleeping dogs lie." Even then, however, the problem of ideological content for the American Zionist movement, once the state had been established, would still have remained.

The logic of events, however, has decreed that, unpopular and difficult as American aliya to Israel may be, unless significant numbers of people from the western world do just that, the tremendous investment in blood, money, and Jewish vitality expended in the struggle for Israel independence may well have been wasted. For the success of Israel will not depend solely on the amount of money and capital investment poured into the country by world Jewry and American friends, nor on the political support they can muster. All these things, of course, are of vital importance; but final success will depend on the type of community which will evolve in the country, its moral and intellectual level, the cultural content of its Jewish life, the kind of democratic government it will create, the character of its citizenry. Behind the phrase "ingathering of exiles" lies the problem of integrating the immigration and establishing these values.

The seven hundred thousand immigrants who have arrived in Israel since the emergence of the state are, for the most part, objects of institutional or government attention. They are not, as yet, people who are capable of coping with the problems of the country and determining its character. Teachers, doctors, engineers, social and government workers—all are needed. Enlightened citizens are needed, who, by their very presence, will prevent government officials from becoming a paternalistic caste. The colonizing of desolate areas, still fifty per cent of the country's area, requires people possessed of strength of character and idealistic determination even more than it requires trained agricultural skill. The fusion of the many tribes and communities and the creation of a renewed Hebraic culture depend on a community of alert, able people, who will accept the responsibility for the practical realization of these goals.

Zionism did not desire the creation of the Jewish state merely for the sake of having a state. Israel will have meaning for itself and for world Jewry if it becomes the crucible for the creation of a new type of society. Such an Israel has yet to be created, though its nucleus exists in the Israel labor and cooperative movements. There are only two sources For the personnel needed to meet this challenge —native Israeli youth itself and immigrants from the modern, educated, free sectors of the world.

It is possible to live in America, believe in a democratic American Jewish community, support the UJA, the Bond Drive, and the Histadrut Campaign, provide one's children with a modern, maximalist Jewish education, and create a meaningful Jewish life for one's family, without being a member of the Zionist movement. Contrary to the view of those who feel that the Zionist movement can be rehabilitated by changing its emphasis to one on American Jewish affairs, the average American Jew, will, in that event, choose to associate himself with those institutions which are expressly set up for that purpose rather than seek to create new ones through the Zionist movement—and he does. This does not mean that the Zionist movement has no stake in these affairs; the contrary is true. It does mean that they cannot be the principal reason for the existence of the Zionist movement. The Zionist movement, if it is to have a reason for existence, must continue to call for the specific Zionist solutions to the problems of Jewish existence and too apply them to American Jewish life, to Jewish education, to Jewish community affairs. These solutions still have validity even after tine emergence of the Jewish state and even for the American Jewish community.

This country does not suffer seriously from problems of anti Semitism and is not likely to suffer from them in the future. It would be intellectually dishonest to attempt to build a chalutz movement on that basis—the basis of "catastrophe Zionism," though this has been advocated by some. It is true, nevertheless—partly as a result of the inadequacy of Jewish education, partly as a result of the tremendous assimilatory pressures, partly as a result of the factors which influence any minority culture—that there is an undercurrent, often subconscious, of psychological insecurity among American Jews. It prompts many of them to fight for the rights of Negroes, for example, while being slightly ashamed of fighting for the right of Jews. It prompts them to hush-hush reports of anti-Semitic outbreaks when they do occur. It prompts them to choose as leaders people who are most acceptable to the goyim, often without due consideration of whether they are the best leadership for Jews. Unaccepted by gentiles, they are yet rootless in Jewish life. They cry out against the creation of a chalutz movement not so much because of ideological conviction, but because of the fear of "mah yomru hagoyim" (what will the gentiles say!).

The Zionist movement can offer a program which can make of American Jews free men and can solve for them the problems of Jewish marginality in America. It can teach them that freedom of choice and action is theirs by right and not by sufferance, and that this attitude is inherent in the ideas of American democracy itself. It can teach them, too, that in Israel they can find a life free of marginality where they can participate in the creation of a new society.

Though the internal institutions of the American Jewish community are growing and developing, with more synagogues, centers, and educational institutions being created and more people becoming active in Jewish affairs, Jewish life itself is losing much of its intensity. Membership in a religious congregation is fast becoming the only acceptable coin of Jewish identification; and this, though in itself positive identification, is, in many if not the majority of cases, purely nominal in content. The factor in Jewish life which can vitalize the cultural content of American Jewish life is Israel. For those who want to live a more complete Jewish life, a more satisfying Jewish life than it will ever be possible to achieve in the United States, aliya is the logical goal.

This, then, is the ideological basis for our approach to the creation of a chalutz movement in the United States. American chalutziut can serve the American Jewish community by providing it with a living link with Israel and making Israel a truly dynamic factor in its life. It can provide American Jews with a positive social vision. It can offer the young American Jew the opportunity of personal participation in the creative social and Jewish experience of fashioning the Jewish state. It is a necessity for the future of Israel.

                                                *                                *                                *

How can we carry out this program? We ought not restrict our aliya activities only to the youth movement. There are adults in the movement who can be motivated towards aliya and who are today potential ohm to Israel. These include young adults in their twenties or thirties, who, though they may perhaps not be ready to live in a kibbutz, possess skills and professions which are needed for the upbuilding of the country, and who desire to live in Israel and participate in its life for their own sake. There are chaverim who are interested
in investing in Israel, opening a factory, or living in a moshav. There are many veteran Zionist families which would seriously consider the idea.

Until now, it has been tacitly assumed that the only people who, from a practical point of view, can consider aliya to Israel are either young people who wish to live in a kibbutz or possess a vital skill, or investors with large sums of money. The "folk-Zionist," who has worked hard in the movement and who possesses limited savings, has not been able to afford himself the "luxury" of thinking of living in Israel. Living in Israel must be placed within the reach of these people. It can be done. In the aggregate, the investment which these chaverim can make in Israel, organized in groups, living together in housing projects, can be much greater than that made by large investors. The impact of their aliya both on the American Jewish community and upon Israel would be literally tremendous. Our movement, traditionally the movement of the "folk-Zionist," is the logical movement to initiate this undertaking.

Our main effort, of course, must be with young people. 

It would seem to me that the problems involved in the construction of such a program are as follows: (1) making Israel and its possible success or failure a matter of personal concern to significant numbers of young American Jews; (2) attracting a percentage of such young people to our movement and, through the movement, converting their concern into a practical intention to settle in Israel; (3) undertaking to train them adequately or to direct their training; (4) crystallizing for ourselves an approach to the various types of life in Israel—the professions, city life, the kibbutz movement, and the moshav, in terms of their relative possibilities for attracting and holding young American Jews and the relative practical difficulties inherent in organizing the aliya of people interested in one form or the other.

The assumption that a good Jewish education, a knowledge of Jewish history, and an appreciation of our Jewish heritage are basic for any successful chalutz attempts should be the starting point of our approach. Israel itself—its emergence, its War of Independence, its very existence—is the most vital and attractive feature of contemporary Jewish education. And awakening a young person's interest in Israel can be the method of awakening his interest in general Jewish values.

The initial attraction must be on the basis of the activity program of Habonim: our celebration of Jewish festivals, Hebrew songs, Israeli dances, and all the other facets of a good youth-group program. Our centers should offer an atmosphere of interest in things Jewish, of intelligent discussion, and of young self-government, which the average "basketball-liberalles" Jewish center cannot hope to provide. A positive interest in things Jewish, however, and an approach to general social and democratic values do not in themselves make for chalutziut. It is at this point that one is confronted with a host of problems—the personality structure of the individual; his home and family environment; his personal plans for education and a particular career; his deep emotional and cultural ties to his current way of life; and the very active and concrete, often bitter, opposition of the whole community in which he lives. The fact that his family may be actively Jewish and Zionist is often of no importance. We cannot hope to achieve this conversion with significant numbers of people if we try to arrive at it while the person remains in his present environment.

Again, the most powerful educational tool at our command is Israel itself. One trip to Israel, if properly motivated and planned, can be more effective than years of discussion, just as acquaintance with one person who actually went to live in Israel, adjusted successfully, and is enthusiastic about his action is more effective than reams of educational material.

Traditionally, we in America have followed the pattern set in other countries and have operated Hechalutz training farms {hachsharot) for the agricultural and cultural training of potential chalutzim from America. The movement expended large sums of money both here and in Canada on building these institutions; and the farms themselves became important movement centers, commanding the loyalty and attachment of large groups of chaverim. Though, historically, the hachshara farm system in other countries, as well as in our own, was a product of the limited immigration possibilities which compelled chalutzim to wait for "certificates," as much as it was a thought-out part of the chalutz training program, there is no doubt of the useful and important function which it served. It concentrated potential olim together and welded them into cohesive groups. It served as a living example to the movement. It was an educational force among the youth groups.

No matter how dear movement institutions may be, however, a movement such as ours is compelled to re-evaluate them continuously in the light of present-day reality. The intense, heated atmosphere of the days of Zionist "political action"; the dramatic era of illegal immigration and underground activity; the British immigration system, which made of hachshara farms a logical step along the road of aliya —all have been successfully concluded. Today the State of Israel stands open and ready to receive all comers. It is the state itself which can best educate young people and best demonstrate its vitality. It is on the basis of experience in Israel itself, not on the basis of experience at a hachshara farm, that a young person will or will not decide to make his home there.

True, he must possess a basic sense of identification with things Jewish, and his stay in Israel must be well planned and organized. It is to this, however, that he can be attracted. The relative success of the Workshop, after two years of operation, in attracting large numbers of participants, a significant percentage of whom have already decided to live in Israel permanently as a result, bears witness to the validity of this approach. In the last analysis, even the person who, after a year in Israel, decides to remain in America, is, potentially, the basis for the future of the Zionist movement in this country.

For the vast majority of American Jewish young people, a year in Israel is financially possible. The Workshop must become one of the main activities of Habonim. Not all Workshoppers will decide to return to Israel to live. Their decision will be based on what they see in Israel, on their own personality problems and needs. But the Workshop idea is an attractive one in itself, even for people who do not plan to live in Israel personally, and can enlist the support of large sections of the American Jewish community.

We should not restrict the Workshop to the Habonim age level only. A Workshop for young adults between the ages of twenty and thirty can be equally important. It should be possible in the course of two or three years to reach the point where the Labor Zionist movement is sponsoring a year's experimental living in Israel for three hundred people a year—experimental living and hachshara. It is the kibbutz and moshav movement, despite internal problems, which is still the most significant force in the country capable of assuming chalutz responsibilities; and, insofar as possible, our chaverim should be directed to it. When the yearly Workshop groups get large enough, each group, plus friends, should be the nucleus for a future settlement in Israel. Their garin should be founded in America and crystallize its opinions while in Israel. Upon returning to America, they should assume responsibility for the movement, discharge personal obligations, acquire additional training, and then return to Israel.

                                        *                                        *                                    *

Experience has shown that the most effective way for the American to adjust to Israel is as part of a group, rather than as a lone individual sailing Israel's uncharted seas of offices, difficult housing conditions, food shortages, and waiting lines, further confused by a language and atmosphere initially strange to him. Even if the person wishes to settle permanently as a professional in the cities of Israel, perhaps the most effective preliminary introduction he could fashion for himself would be an initial stay in a kibbutz, ultimately moving to the city.

Living in the cities in Israel for an American necessitates a considerable initial outlay of funds for an apartment, for furniture, for supplies, which may well run into thousands of dollars. It is difficult to see a youth movement such as Habonim, whose membership is just beginning life, sponsoring a large-scale program on such a basis. Israel desperately needs doctors, nurses, engineers, social workers, psychologists, and other professionals, who will, in the main, not live in kibbutzim, and America can certainly be a prime source of such people. A serious program for the recruitment of professionals must be aimed at people in their twenties and thirties, who have already had a certain preliminary experience in their field and the opportunity of saving the necessary funds for aliya. PATWA is the beginning of such a movement.

It would be a disservice to the cause of chalutziut to say that we can look forward to the aliya of masses of people to Israel within the appreciable future. The factors militating against chalutziut are too strong; the whole environment in which we live, too hostile. From a long-range point of view, only a well-integrated Jewish educational system, only the continuous advocacy of chalutziut by the Zionist movement can create the community climate necessary for such a movement.

Aliya to Israel will, of necessity, be small. There do exist, however, groups of people in this country who already possess the identification with things Jewish, the desire to live a complete Jewish life, the interest in Israelis new social forms, the desire and ambition to participate in the building of a new country and new society, the dissatisfaction with their marginal position in America as Jews, to constitute a significant reservoir for a chalutz movement at least several times the size of our movement today. In terms of Israel and in terms of our own movement, the number will be significant.

MURRAY WEINGARTEN, New York, 1953